But if this were English, I'd think the RIAA had filed a motion to prevent the defense from citing precedents set in other cases. Is that seriously what this is?
Their motion is to prevent defendant from introducing "evidence of other copyright lawsuits involving Plaintiffs".
What I find interesting about it is that they did that themselves in this very case, in Trial #1. So they are trying to preclude the defendant from doing what they themselves did.
So if a record company doesn't have the paper to show they are the owner, they cannot be the owner of the copyright.
Well theoretically they could be the owner, but they couldn't recover statutory damages. They could only recover their actual damages. 35 cents, more or less.
So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute?
The party who has the burden of proof of proving ownership of copyrights is saying it. Hmmmm. I wonder why. If it was so easy for them to prove, and beyond dispute, why make an issue out of it?
Asking the judge to bar your opponent from participating in the court? What kind of sheep-brained idiocy is this? How could they even think that was a valid tactic to use? The only possible conclusion is that the RIAA lawyers are the victims of a full frontal lobotomy.
Well I doubt it was a full frontal lobotomy, because all the viciousness is intact.
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation? I would think that they could afford it.
Having the resources to afford competent representation doesn't necessarily mean having the judgement to select competent representation. Its probably not all that uncommon that people with plenty of resources (particularly if the position they want to take is not well supported) end up with the representation most willing to tell them what they want to hear, not necessarily the most effective at providing useful advice and effective advocacy.
Let's put it this way: the RIAA has the representation it deserves.
The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages. The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed. In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that.
It may not be so black and white. IIRC, if copyrights are not registered within a certain time period, one can only sue for actual damages and not statutory damages. This would make a huge difference to the defendant, since actual damages would be about $10.
NewYorkCountryLawyer, This isn't the clearest summary you've written. I'd suggest that next time, you just give us the facts, for instance the first sentence of your summary would have been enough, and then you just let us do our part and let us add the outrage, the anger, the guessing, and the confusing remarks, all by ourselves.
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
I've hardly ever had to visit his blog due to the marvelous quality of his summaries. Maybe if he cut down on the quality of his summaries he could up the traffic to his blog.
Are they really relying on the argument that the previous jury upheld their claims, when said verdict was overturned? Are they that dense, or is this desperation?
What's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you aren't allowed to do things differently?
Then again, this is law we're talking about, so logic and common sense probably don't apply.
This is NOT law; this is baloney. The RIAA lawyers wouldn't know the law if it hit them on the head.
I can't believe my above comment got modded "informative"; I think my moderators were trying to get their moderation rated "+5 Funny". Will someone tell them moderators don't get modded?
Absolutely. As soon as I saw the headline -- "Russia Launches Anti-trust Probe of Microsoft" -- the first thing that came into my mind was that this was a perfect story for Slashdot.
The only thing missing was a subhead: "Software Giant Accused of Cheating Natalie Portman".
NYCL posted something which has nothing to do with the media
Huh? Microsoft products are delivered via media just as much as Sony's (for example) are. Even if you were using "media" as a weird synonym for "entertainment" (or "culture") it would seem to be as much applicable to Microsoft as to the companies NYCL usually takes an interest in. In fact even if you meant to say "music industry", Microsoft would be more than tangentially involved.
Nah. My interest in this one is just a sporting one. Microsoft v. Russia? You gotta love that one.
We didn't know you had interests other than fighting the RIAA?
Well as you know my professional life is largely about fighting for the good guys, against the bad guys. This story comes as a welcome relief from my normal activities.
1. The Supreme Court, in its Gore decision, did not distinguish between statutory damages or punitive damages. It referred to "punitive awards", it cited a Supreme Court precedent involving statutory damages, and it based its conclusion as to an acceptable multiple on an analysis of statutory damages.
2. The 8th amendment argument has to do with the argument that it is really a criminal statute in sheeps' clothing. The body of law to which I refer is under the 5th amendment, due process, concept.
Slashdot Mirror
But if this were English, I'd think the RIAA had filed a motion to prevent the defense from citing precedents set in other cases. Is that seriously what this is?
Their motion is to prevent defendant from introducing "evidence of other copyright lawsuits involving Plaintiffs".
What I find interesting about it is that they did that themselves in this very case, in Trial #1. So they are trying to preclude the defendant from doing what they themselves did.
So if a record company doesn't have the paper to show they are the owner, they cannot be the owner of the copyright.
Well theoretically they could be the owner, but they couldn't recover statutory damages. They could only recover their actual damages. 35 cents, more or less.
So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute?
The party who has the burden of proof of proving ownership of copyrights is saying it. Hmmmm. I wonder why. If it was so easy for them to prove, and beyond dispute, why make an issue out of it?
Asking the judge to bar your opponent from participating in the court? What kind of sheep-brained idiocy is this? How could they even think that was a valid tactic to use? The only possible conclusion is that the RIAA lawyers are the victims of a full frontal lobotomy.
Well I doubt it was a full frontal lobotomy, because all the viciousness is intact.
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation? I would think that they could afford it.
Having the resources to afford competent representation doesn't necessarily mean having the judgement to select competent representation. Its probably not all that uncommon that people with plenty of resources (particularly if the position they want to take is not well supported) end up with the representation most willing to tell them what they want to hear, not necessarily the most effective at providing useful advice and effective advocacy.
Let's put it this way: the RIAA has the representation it deserves .
The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages. The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed. In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that.
It may not be so black and white. IIRC, if copyrights are not registered within a certain time period, one can only sue for actual damages and not statutory damages. This would make a huge difference to the defendant, since actual damages would be about $10.
Quite right! Yes YDRC.
In theory, I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.
...unless of course you were following the law.
NewYorkCountryLawyer, This isn't the clearest summary you've written. I'd suggest that next time, you just give us the facts, for instance the first sentence of your summary would have been enough, and then you just let us do our part and let us add the outrage, the anger, the guessing, and the confusing remarks, all by ourselves.
And let you guys have all the fun? NFW.
Just how badly does a lawyer have to behave in the US to be disbarred?
Well, keep your eye on the RIAA's lawyer handling this case; I think he's trying to find out. He'll probably have an answer for you one of these days.
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation?
"So, do you know that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation?"
There, fixed that for you. The answer is yes.
I've hardly ever had to visit his blog due to the marvelous quality of his summaries. Maybe if he cut down on the quality of his summaries he could up the traffic to his blog.
Now you tell me.
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
Are they really relying on the argument that the previous jury upheld their claims, when said verdict was overturned? Are they that dense, or is this desperation?
Yes, yes, and yes.
What's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you aren't allowed to do things differently? Then again, this is law we're talking about, so logic and common sense probably don't apply.
This is NOT law; this is baloney. The RIAA lawyers wouldn't know the law if it hit them on the head.
Sorry, but the RIAA has filed a motion to keep me from posting a comment...
Sorry but they've filed a motion to keep me from telling you that their motion is frivolous.
Ironic, the country that brought us the grand monopoly - communism, is trying to stop a monopoly. Marx and Lenin are definitely rolling over ....
As are we all.
Who do I root for on this one?
That's easy.
You root for them both to lose.
I can't believe my above comment got modded "informative"; I think my moderators were trying to get their moderation rated "+5 Funny". Will someone tell them moderators don't get modded?
We're corrupting him! The poor fellow...
Absolutely. As soon as I saw the headline -- "Russia Launches Anti-trust Probe of Microsoft" -- the first thing that came into my mind was that this was a perfect story for Slashdot.
The only thing missing was a subhead: "Software Giant Accused of Cheating Natalie Portman".
NYCL posted something which has nothing to do with the media
Huh? Microsoft products are delivered via media just as much as Sony's (for example) are. Even if you were using "media" as a weird synonym for "entertainment" (or "culture") it would seem to be as much applicable to Microsoft as to the companies NYCL usually takes an interest in. In fact even if you meant to say "music industry", Microsoft would be more than tangentially involved.
Nah. My interest in this one is just a sporting one. Microsoft v. Russia? You gotta love that one.
We didn't know you had interests other than fighting the RIAA?
Well as you know my professional life is largely about fighting for the good guys, against the bad guys. This story comes as a welcome relief from my normal activities.
Microsoft v. Russia?
This is rich.
This is just too beautiful.
1. The Supreme Court, in its Gore decision, did not distinguish between statutory damages or punitive damages. It referred to "punitive awards", it cited a Supreme Court precedent involving statutory damages, and it based its conclusion as to an acceptable multiple on an analysis of statutory damages.
2. The 8th amendment argument has to do with the argument that it is really a criminal statute in sheeps' clothing. The body of law to which I refer is under the 5th amendment, due process, concept.
I don't know what case you are talking about; it certainly doesn't resemble any Supreme Court case of which I am aware.